I care about people, not things.
So you'd rather be a starving child in Africa whose parents are always there for you then a rich American kid whose parents are too involved in work to pay attention to you?
Of course. Cuz not wanting to be a rich kid who spends no time with their parents automatically means I'd prefer the exact opposite extreme.
No, I asked this because you said "I care about people, not things." If you care about people rather than things, you WOULD prefer that situation.
Oh you're so right. Sense I don't prefer that situation, I guess I care about my things way more than people. How about you make the circumstances equal for your next example, like "would you prefer to live in a shitty ass apartment with your unemployed mother living off food stamps but you spend a lot of time with your parent. Because they're unemployed." Because no, I wouldn't trade time with my parents to live in a barren waste land with no food no medicine and a short life span.
That's not the point. You said "I care about people, not things." If that is true, you wouldn't care about any "things."
My guess is that you meant to say "I prefer people more than things." But that isn't what you said.
I don't understand what you're telling me isn't the point.
And nope. I don't care about things. Unless you wanna count my health, education, and not being eaten by a lion a thing.
If you don't care about things, then you wouldn't mind being an impoverished African...
Health is not a physical, own-able, thing. I wouldn't want to be a starving child in Africa, but it's not because I like things more than people, or even that I care about things at all.
...ok? Health is not. Neither is being eaten by a lion. Or education. But let's ignore those things to better fit your argument, right?
Without food, you won't have health. And being eating by a lion isn't actually an enormous risk, regardless of your location. When I said living in Africa, I said that because that is where the poorest people are, not because there is lots of harmful diseases and dangerous animals there. And if you don't have wealth, you'll likely live in a ghetto area where the schools suck, anyways. So you won't have a great education without wealth.
And it's not okay for me to add a location to the imaginative scenario, but it's okay for you to post anonymously to strengthen your argument?
1) I'm anon?
2) School is school. Whether or not you live in the ghetto, you have a choice to get an education if you're motivated.
3) Just because food is an own-able item, doesn't mean health is. Just because I care about my health doesn't mean I care about things.
Not really. If you have horrible teachers and a disruptive class, you can't get a great education.
And yes, you've proving you're the anon by having the comments come in on the exact same time twice now... and no one has commented in two weeks.
I'm pretty sure they know what their priorities are and what they would prefer. Don't try to make rules for how people should think, because you just come off looking like pompous ass.
And you come off as not understanding a situation by making a comment demonstrating that. He made a comment claiming that he cared about people rather than things. Which would technically mean that he would prefer the situation. I'm not telling him he should prefer either one, I'm telling him to understand the claims he is making.
You come off as not understanding a situation by making a comment demonstrating that.
I think they know what they care about and the claim they're making better than you. Just because someone doesn't care about objects doesn't mean they want to live in a barren waste land. You should have made the circumstances even in gravity and comparable. I wouldn't want to live in Africa either. But it's not because I'd miss my things.
Really? You wouldn't miss any of your things? I don't believe that.
Of course you wouldn't believe that, because you're a materialistic brat. You're attached to your things so much to the point you'd actually MISS them? That is SAD. I'm gonna go ahead and quit replying to you, because you're just trolling at this point.
Your comment makes no sense. I'm not sure whether you're attempting sarcasm or what the hell is going on, but you haven't won anything here.
It makes perfect sense to people with 50%+ a brain. Do you even know what sarcasm IS? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't, seeing as how "unsettling" doesn't make sense for this pose. You must really like arguing if you see it as "win or lose"
You're obviously Colebowl, dumbass.
Oh yes. OBVIOUSLY. Because you know, colebowl is the only one who nwed and had an argument for it. Dumbass.
This is the second time the comments for you and Colebowl have come in on the same time (which is the same person). You're the dumbass.
You're an idiot. It even says on your profile that you'll continue to fight an argument even when you have no ground to stand on. I would rather have my loving parents than an iPhone 4S and a Ferrari, but comparing being middle class to upper class is a whole different thing to comparing living to 30 because of disease and famine to living healthily to 80. Basic, bottom-of-Maslow's-hierachy items do not count as being "rich", which is what your OP said.
First of all, you're not the anonymous user. I'm not sure whether you're claiming to be, but you joined two days ago. This conversation has been going on for more than two.
Second of all, don't like your own comments. That just shows how much of an ass you are.
Finally, I'd rather have an Ferrari than loving parents. But that's just me. If you don't agree, I could care less. But you're going to have to shut the fuck up sometime soon.
I am not the same user that posted those other comments. Why the hell would someone make a new random account in order to look like more than 1 person is competing in an argument? I would like to know, have you ever had a Ferrari or loving parents? If you have had neither, you're not one to talk. You underestimate the emotional effect of having abusive and/or negectful parents.
To be honest, this wasn't a post comparing the luck of those that have loving parents against those that were rich but didn't have loving parents. This post was simply saying that rich kids with unloving parents are far from unlucky because many, many people have neither wealth nor loving parents.